The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[nomadologist]

Not always: in pre-statehood, post-U.S.-conquest California, the hierarchy went Anglo whites, Mexican plantation owners (typically "whiter" but very messy of course), Italians/Irish, Chinese and Mexican laborers, blacks on the bottom. These statuses changed around as the racial makeup and socio-economic situation changed.

True, was thinking more broadly of the general "Western" racist hierarchy, as continues to be displayed in, e.g., Bell Curve-style thinking, where Asians are "closer" to Europeans/whites in terms of the level of "civilization" exhibited in their cultures, though this is broad and probably has exceptions, too.

I'm sure we did a good job of painting the Chinese (edit: and the Japanese of course!) as "savages"/"heathens" at several points when it was politically advantageous to do so.

 

[nomadologist]

I think that's an unnecessarily conspiratorial view of the situation; it's just cowardly pandering to the right-wing press as far as I can see. Plenty of immigrants from eastern Europe have arrived with a good knowledge of English (though many haven't, of course) and still do low-paid jobs which are nonetheless far better paid than jobs they can get back home.

I don't know--it makes sense to me as a plausible scenario in the same way it makes sense that the U.S. government and the political forces of the day saw fit to use the mass destruction they knew would be caused by the introduction of crack as a vehicle of political/social/economic repression/oppression.

This is one of the ways I think the U.S. differs politically from the U.K.--there's enormous amounts of self-interest and HUGE money involved in the political sphere, which is essentially run by big business insofar as it bows to the whims of big business economically and political gains are always framed within these exchanges.

 

[Gavin]

I think that's an unnecessarily conspiratorial view of the situation; it's just cowardly pandering to the right-wing press as far as I can see.

But why does the right wing press bang on about it? Why is Bush pro-immigration? It's a source of cheap labor, it's historically been used as a wedge to divide the working class and keep wages low. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's how the system works.

Plenty of immigrants from eastern Europe have arrived with a good knowledge of English (though many haven't, of course) and still do low-paid jobs which are nonetheless far better paid than jobs they can get back home.

Yes there are many arbitrary barriers besides language.

 

[Gavin]

This book is a quite excellent (if very specific) look at how it works...

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5856.html

 

[nomadologist]

But why does the right wing press bang on about it? Why is Bush pro-immigration? It's a source of cheap labor, it's historically been used as a wedge to divide the working class and keep wages low. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's how the system works.

Exactly. Back when my grandparents were frantically trying to assimilate by learning English and working at losing their accents, they were still marked as "lower class" citizens by their "recently immigrated" status no matter how great the strides they made.

The fact that we're allowing immigrants to continue to more obviously tag themselves as "service industry professionals" and "second-class citizens" by not setting aside some sort of government aid for adult English courses or other incentives to learn English is highly suspect. Does seem likely that conservatives are standing behind a "multiculturalism-friendly" facade knowing that it's in the interest of big business and the economy at large to have a source of cheap labor to exploit, ready-at-hand. Otherwise I suspect they would do everything in their power to get people speaking English.

 

[Gavin]

Of course this whole immigration debate would be moot if capitalist imperialism didn't keep most of the world in a perpetually impoverished state of raw material production (shored up by puppet governments) and native industries were allowed to develop.

 

[Gavin]

Noel, that comment reminds me of the Dutch politician who got shot a few years ago, Pim Forteyn or something, who was popularly described as "far-right" because his party wanted to massively restrict immigration...but dig a bit deeper and it turns out he was anti-immigration because much of the Netherlands' immigrants, like those of Britain, were coming from parts of the world, particularly Islamic countries, where peoples' cultural values were greatly at odds with the famously liberal and progressive values common to Dutch politics and, indeed, most of the general public. This politician, who was himself openly gay, was typically liberal when it came to women's rights, gay rights, euthanasia, all of that.

Doesn't this show the limits of Dutch tolerance though? Or at least how it's not actually tolerance at all? Of course I support gay rights, secularism, etc, but when you have a litmus test for what views get you into a country, how is that tolerance? And these are honest questions, so don't Tea and crackerjack go assuming I have already made up my mind on this because I've questioned it.

Really, I think the "values debate" with immigration is mostly a mask for economic concerns, the same way it works in U.S. elections. It's also a good way to blame immigrants, instead of nativism, for their inability to assimilate, once again frequently grounded in the idea of an ontologically irrational Other.

By the way, Forteyn was killed by a Dutch animal rights activist.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But why does the right wing press bang on about it? Why is Bush pro-immigration? It's a source of cheap labor, it's historically been used as a wedge to divide the working class and keep wages low. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's how the system works.

No, I appreciate that, but I can't really see the Government's interest in 'keeping them down' as such: wealthier people pay more tax, claim less beneifits, spend more money, commit less crime and generally complain a whole lot less than poor people, don't they?

 

[noel emits]

Really, I think the "values debate" with immigration is mostly a mask for economic concerns, the same way it works in U.S. elections. It's also a good way to blame immigrants, instead of nativism, for their inability to assimilate, once again frequently grounded in the idea of an ontologically irrational Other.

My view of this is that in the UK there has been a failure to define and present what the country's 'values' might be. I think many governments have been wary of being too specific about what 'British' culture is for fear that ethical clarity might get in the way of the exigencies of consolidating power and smoothing the mechanisms of big business. Those are the only morals that speak and I think subliminally this outlook of exploitative nihilism filters through to the broader culture. I'd say having (or having had) a written constitution has made it clearer and harder to distort what 'American' values are.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Really, I think the "values debate" with immigration is mostly a mask for economic concerns, the same way it works in U.S. elections. It's also a good way to blame immigrants, instead of nativism, for their inability to assimilate, once again frequently grounded in the idea of an ontologically irrational Other.

But that doesn't alter the fact that a lot of immigrants to Britian, and in particular those from Muslim countries, make very little effort to integrate and in fact often revel in their separateness and differentness - in other words they make themselves an 'Other' as much as, if not more than, they are made by the existing society. I'm not making this up and I'm not paraphrasing the media, it's what I see every day when I walk out my front door.

No-one's asking them to give up their language or religion or culture or any of that, but many areas of British cities are becoming ghettoised because people move their and just treat it like an extension of their own country.

 

[Edward]

This is one of the ways I think the U.S. differs politically from the U.K.--there's enormous amounts of self-interest and HUGE money involved in the political sphere, which is essentially run by big business insofar as it bows to the whims of big business economically and political gains are always framed within these exchanges.

in the US or the UK?
I think both, see PFI, current funding scandals etc.

 

[Mr. Tea]

in the US or the UK?
I think both, see PFI, current funding scandals etc.

From another commenter on the Guardian site:

Both old Tory England and social democratic Britain have died and all there is left is consumerism and rebellion against it which is, at the same time, now an institutionalised part of it.

which is OTM, I think.

 

[nomadologist]

I meant that it differs in that the influence of big business and a lot of hugely powerful but abstract forces is quite a bit stronger in the U.S. than in the U.K., but I only base this tentative notion on what I read coming from Brits here, online elsewhere, and generally in your media--there's a lot more incredulity from Brits on here, for example, about the extent to which abstract economic forces run government/politics than you'd get from most Americans. This has lead me to wonder whether the situation in the U.K. is perhaps a little better in this regard, or at least the public perception of how things work is much different.

Can't say I know for sure. Personally I think the U.K. is part of the global economy that is ultimately run according to the same forces and principles and institutions that the U.S. economy is.

 

[Gavin]

No, I appreciate that, but I can't really see the Government's interest in 'keeping them down' as such: wealthier people pay more tax, claim less beneifits, spend more money, commit less crime and generally complain a whole lot less than poor people, don't they?

You don't see how keeping people poor and working for lower wages benefits the corporations that effectively decide government policy under neoliberal management?

The rich take advantage of tax shelters, claim plenty of corporate welfare, spend money on useless luxury goods that benefit no one, commit all sorts of "white collar" crimes that cost societies far more than simple property crimes (as well as engage in illegal military invasions, use of mercenaries, illegal smuggling, bribery etc.). As far as complaining, I think that's hard to quantify. These people need poor people to exploit in order to create profit. They control governments in order to make this run more smoothly: governments listen to money, not votes (or "complaining").

I know you Brits like to think of your political system as apart and above the outrageous corruption and obvious dysfunction of the U.S. neoliberal playground, but I think you should see us as your horrible future, one that's coming on fast.

 

[noel emits]

IThis has lead me to wonder whether the situation in the U.K. is perhaps a little better in this regard, or at least the public perception of how things work is much different.

Can't say I know for sure. Personally I think the U.K. is part of the global economy that is ultimately run according to the same forces and principles and institutions that the U.S. economy is.

Absolutely, it's just that the British are better at appearing 'awfully decent'. If anything it might even be worse here for that very reason.

 

[Slothrop]

You don't see how keeping people poor and working for lower wages benefits the corporations that effectively decide government policy under neoliberal management?

The rich take advantage of tax shelters, claim plenty of corporate welfare, spend money on useless luxury goods that benefit no one, commit all sorts of "white collar" crimes that cost societies far more than simple property crimes (as well as engage in illegal military invasions, use of mercenaries, illegal smuggling, bribery etc.). As far as complaining, I think that's hard to quantify. These people need poor people to exploit in order to create profit. They control governments in order to make this run more smoothly: governments listen to money, not votes (or "complaining").

I'm not sure I see your point. Sure they need poor people somewhere to exploit, but doesn't it work equally well to have the poor people be convenienly on the other side of the world where you can even tell them to be grateful that you're paying them a pittance rather than down the road from some rather better off people who'll fill their heads with dangerous ideas about minimum wages and unionization? Having the west full of comfortably middle class consumers (be they Daily Mail readers or Guardian readers) seems like a fairly good way to make money off it.

To me, resentment of any effort to make immigrants better off or to help them out on their own terms seem to flow pretty naturally from the sort of parochialism, xenophobia and self-centredness that have been around in british society since the year dot, and that are a lot easier to play up to as a 'campaigning' tabloid editor than tolerance and altruism...

 

[Gavin]

I'm not sure I see your point. Sure they need poor people somewhere to exploit, but doesn't it work equally well to have the poor people be convenienly on the other side of the world where you can even tell them to be grateful that you're paying them a pittance rather than down the road from some rather better off people who'll fill their heads with dangerous ideas about minimum wages and unionization? Having the west full of comfortably middle class consumers (be they Daily Mail readers or Guardian readers) seems like a fairly good way to make money off it.

To me, resentment of any effort to make immigrants better off or to help them out on their own terms seem to flow pretty naturally from the sort of parochialism, xenophobia and self-centredness that have been around in british society since the year dot, and that are a lot easier to play up to as a 'campaigning' tabloid editor than tolerance and altruism...

Oh I completely agree with you... in fact, it's much easier to go to the other side of the world where they don't have 200 years of union agitation shoring up the rights of workers.... Tea seemed a bit confused, trying to straighten him out a bit...

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Haha, to pick up an earlier thought in this thread, this article on Morrissey's alleged racism dubs 'racist' "the R-word":

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarfraz_manzoor/2007/12/is_it_really_so_strange.html

Morrissey responds ("I abhor racism, and apologise - for speaking to NME").

The greater danger with hurling such accusations at anyone - and in this I include, albeit with some hesitation, Martin Amis -

Some hesitation?

Shame On Us

"Amis got away with it. He got away with as odious an outburst of racist sentiment as any public figure has made in this country for a very long time. Shame on him for saying it, and shame on us for tolerating it."

 

[crackerjack]

I'm not sure I see your point. Sure they need poor people somewhere to exploit, but doesn't it work equally well to have the poor people be convenienly on the other side of the world

Not if they're sweeping your office floor.

 

[crackerjack]

But why does the right wing press bang on about it? Why is Bush pro-immigration? It's a source of cheap labor, it's historically been used as a wedge to divide the working class and keep wages low.

The right-wing press bangs on about it because fear and anger sell newspapers and smiley happy multiculturalism doesn't.

Your grand conspiracy theory doesn't stack up: if UK business needs cheap immigrant labour and the UK press serves the interest of UK business, why do they spend so much time stirring up resentment of immigrants, thus putting pressure on the government to reduce their number?